John, I guess I would say that inquiry into inquiry reveals that we have an instinct for inquiry.
(as Oedipus found to his dismay) Regards, Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Jul 14, 2015, at 8:36 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks to everyone who responded, but especially to Miguel for sending this > gem. Now I just have to figure out what lies behind it. > > I agree with Jeff that the Century Dictionary entries are not particularly > useful. > > I should be asleep. Best to all, > > John > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: July 15, 2015 1:18 AM > To: John Collier; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Dear John, > > In the last paragraph of an extremely interesting text, "A Theory of Probable > Inference", W4: 408-450 (1883); Peirce points that "Side by side, then, with > the well established proposition that all knowledge is based on experience, > and that science is only advanced by the experimental verifications of > theories, we have to place this other equally important truth, that all human > knowledge, up to the highest flights of science, is but the development of > our inborn animal instincts." > > Best, > > Miguel Angel Fernandez > > El 14/07/2015 a las 19:08, John Collier escribió: > Folks, > > I am very interested in instincts for various reasons. I recently gave a talk > on Piaget’s views on instincts at the International Society for Philosophy, > History and Social Sciences in Biology in Montreal last week. I would be most > interested if there is a Peircean position on instincts that can be supported > by his writings. I would be surprised if this were not so, but so far I have > not seen anything that I could use. > > Best to all, > John > > From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: July 12, 2015 8:04 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Edwina Taborsky; Benjamin Udell; > <[email protected]> > Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Ozzie, Stephen, Stephen, List, > I agree. And I think, that idealists are in fact realists, because: Liberty, > equality, fraternity and justice are not only ideals, but also human > instincts, inherited structure of the human race, written down in the DNA. > That is so, because genetically we are still hunters and collectors, and they > have led a free life, people were quite equal with their rights and plights, > everybody was dependent on everybody else, and they had to solve conflicts in > a just way. So I think, that culture is often overestimated, a rigid culture > can block these instincts for a while, but they will reappear soon. This view > is just rosy because of its hope, that no rigid culture will gain total > control. > Best, > Helmut > > > Ozzie <[email protected]> > > Stephen ~ > I don't go along with your characterization of American history in such > generic terms. You seem to say the founding fathers supported personal > freedom -- end of story. But America's founding fathers revolted for a > specific reason: English citizens living in the American colonies did not > have representatives in the British Parliament or the protections of British > law. > > The US Constitution established a central government with constraints on what > it could do, but among those constraints we do not find a limit on the size > of government, special rights for a privileged minority or protection of the > status quo (independent of other legally recognized rights). > Live-and-let-live is the law of the land, but when enough citizens support > new policies the founding fathers provided them/us a means of promoting > their/our aspirations. New laws, new states, new voters, and Constitutional > amendments were all anticipated within their master plan. Change. > > Thus America was a controlled social experiment. The founding fathers > established a mechanism for seeking the most beneficial social policies, but > didn't prescribe them. > > As far as outcomes, everyone has an opinion. That's politics. > > Regards, > > Tom Wyrick > > > > > On Jul 12, 2015, at 6:54 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > > It would seem that Edwina and I are on the same page throughout most of this > topic. It is often said that the founding fathers of America understood > something about human nature, hence their emphasis on minimal government. > What was that “something?” Let me posit a guess. IMHO, it would proceed by > way of the following reasoning: > 1. Idealists are usually well-intentioned enough. They see the world > through rose-coloured glasses and want to fix things that they perceive are > “wrong” or “broken.” But accompanying their best intentions is a problem... a > very intractable problem; > 2. To make the naive but well-intentioned vision of idealists work, > they need to harness cultural groupthink, and they need to implement the > machinery of bureaucracies... ie, big government. They need to give license > to groupthink to make it work. The person that assimilates well into the cogs > of bureaucratic groupthink is a very different kind of animal to the naive > but well-intentioned idealist; > 3. The typical idealist is usually a very congenial person with > passions and ideas. The typical bureaucrat (at least from the perspective of > my own experience as a whistleblower-turned-refugee) is usually a secretive > troglodyte that maps his own agenda to the purpose of the greater > bureaucratic machine. He uses the bureaucratic machine, principally, to > further his own ends, and his ideal situation is synergy between his own > agenda and that of the bureaucracy. Any person that is perceived as a threat > to both agendas is perceived as dangerous and is to be eliminated. In the > meantime, while all this takes places under the cover of The Privacy Act, > EEO, FOI, HR, and other such smoke-and-mirrors hogwash, the bureaucracy > carries on its people-friendly masquerade that is usually publicly associated > with the intentions of the idealists. > I think that America’s founding fathers were onto something. How tragic that > it’s all falling into a heap now. This then, is the crux of the problem. > Bureaucracies require the application of a very different kind of groupthink > psychology to that of the individualistic idealist that inspires them... the > secrets and hidden agendas that make the behemoth of stoopid work are very > different to the congenial, public best wishes of the idealists, and there is > no solution to this conflict of interest. It is at this juncture that the > well-intentioned idealist becomes naught but a useful idiot... useful as a > public face of the bureaucratic machine that takes on a life of its own. > sj > > From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2015 2:54 PM > To: Thomas > Cc: Benjamin Udell; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Yes, very nice outline, Thomas, of the strength of the 'melting pot' tactic, > which I support. And that's why I'm against the current focus on > 'multiculturalism' and 'identity politics' which is all the rage in America > and Europe now. It actually retains and fosters those ancient irrational > tribal hatreds. And any 'progressive' who, in their multicultural/identity > political sanctimonious zeal doesn't understand that these minority enclaves > - which are kept insular by multiculturalism/identity politics.... can be > even more racist, bigoted and irrational than any majority...is naive in the > extreme. > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thomas > To: Edwina Taborsky > Cc: Benjamin Udell ; <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 11:46 PM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Edwina ~ > Germans and the other groups you listed have all assimilated into American > society, and none of the nationalities or races have proved particularly > intractable. The melting pot is imperfect, but it does a good job of > challenging cultural myths and ancient hatreds that seem to continue for > centuries in closed/insular societies. The demagogues of America appeal to > the down-and-out of most/all nationalities -- almost as though they're > broad-minded humanists. That reveals a focus on laws and justice, as opposed > to settling scores with ancient enemies. > > By contrast, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are comprised of far more > insular societies. Historically most people there have been poor and ruled by > often-brutal and almost-always deceitful autocrats who coopted the church to > hold onto power. Little wonder that warlords and terrorists have played such > a big role in their political histories. > > Regards, > > Tim Wyrick > > > > On Jul 10, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, stereotypes are basic to our identification of 'identity groups' - > whether it be Jews, Italians, Germans, Russians, Chinese. Such distorted and > simplistic images-of-the-other are found among all people. Americans are > viewed by Europeans as...and so on. But the few key variables of behaviour > that we understand to define 'that nationality' are not, in my view, an > explanation for the rise of fascism in Germany. > > That is, my point is that we are all as human beings, susceptible to > emotional blindness in our political and societal views; we aren't at all > 'rational beings' when dealing with political and social affairs. Therefore, > if the economic and societal order breaks down, I'd say that we are all > susceptible to fascism. There is a critical threshold when the rule of law, > the political order, the societal order, the economic viability breaks down - > and a power-bloc can move in and take over..and then, impose its fascism. > > The ideology of 'old Germany', with its aristocracy, its ideals of governance > had little to do with the ideology of 'pure race' of Nazism, nor the Nazi > focus on nationalism as a biological construct and the contempt for 'lesser > beings'. After all, the British upper class had a similar focus as the old > Germans on 'noblesse oblige', strict rules of behaviour, a military career > and so on - and were not susceptile to fascism. [But many were susceptible to > communism/socialism!]. > > There were plenty of people in the old upper class and the middle class of > Germany who were opposed to fascism and Nazism. > > Yes, the horrors of WWII did bring a requirement that US military bases > remain in Germany after 1990 reunification - but, logically, such a demand by > the French and others cannot PROVE that, 'Germans are basically capable of > moving back into fascism' without such a presence. That is - the modus ponens > statement of: > IF there are bases, THEN, they will be peaceful" > > can't be turned around to declare: > 'They are peaceful; that's because there are bases'. (Fallacy of Affirming > the Consequent). > > So- I am not convinced that the German people are predisposed to fascism, nor > that Hitler's rise was a mysterious event. I remain focused on the economic, > political and societal infrastructure - which can decimate a culture's deep > beliefs in a decade. We have our own examples. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Benjamin Udell > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:19 PM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Having grown up in the 1960s on Manhattan's West Side, when WWII wasn't so > long ago and a German accent was immediately associated to movies and TV > series about Nazis, I admit that I may be unduly predisposed to regard > certain strains of militarism, morality by government fiat, and 'just taking > orders' as problematic aspects of the early-20th-Century German culture. Also > I read _Roots of the Nazi Mentality_ when I was an impressionable kid. > > But I don't think that power affairs (military+politics) and economics are > everything against culture (glamour!) and society (status!) as some sort of > zero. You've a case to make there, Edwina, if you wish to convince people. > The problematic character of early-20th-Century German attitudes - > militarism, morality by government fiat, 'just taking orders' - have not gone > unnoticed by anybody around Germany. The reunification of Germany in the > 1990s involved US guarantees of maintaining military bases in Germany, > guarantees sought by the French and other governments. > > Best, Ben > > On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > No, Helmut, I don't think that the German people 'had more barbaric instincts > than other people'. We are all similar in our capacity for emotional > irrationality and violence. When a societal system of law and order breaks > down for various reasons, i.e., is not providing security, is not functioning > in a just and fair manner, is corrupt, , is subverted by a higher authority - > then, the 'cooling off' phase of rational examination of the situation is > rejected - and we get either a mob, or a 'controlled mob, i.e., a band of > thugs'. > > Democracy is not, in itself, a barrier against barbarism. As Tolstoy said, > 'Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority shares in it'. > Democracy, to be just, requires a constitution and the rule of law, set up as > created by men, and capable of change by men, but applicable to all. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Helmut Raulien > To: Ozzie > Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; <[email protected]> ; Peirce List > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:51 PM > Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > I agree, that his "abduction-type message is" only "a big part of that > success". Tenacity, authority and apriori also are. I wrote, that a false > abduction to laypersons of logic can look like a proper conclusion. But not > all Germans were too much laypersons to see the lies (eg. Heidegger). > Nevertheless they followed him. Putting the emphasis on Hitlers intelligent > ways of manipulation should not assign him a bigger part of the guilt, and > lessen the guilt of the Germans. They had more barbaric instincts than the > other peoples, and were no democrats. Other in than other nations, there has > not been a democratic constitution initiated by the people. > Best, > Helmut > > Ozzie <[email protected]> > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > > ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or > "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but > to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of > the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
